Jacob Christensen » Jacob Christensen

Play-School or Parliament?

Jacob Christensen — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:51:35 +0000

Today’s Politiken has an article where a number of new MPs complain about the dominant culture in the Danish parliament. Their basic line of argument is that political debate has degenerated into endless repetitions of obvious questions and arguments and that much political behaviour now verges on (if it hasn’t already crossed) the border of victimising.

It is difficult to gauge the argument without extensive studies of parliamentary debates but the observation merits discussion.

First, one of the MPs (Mette Bock) makes the obvious mistake of confusing a parliament with a business. A business corporation has a limited number of goals (produce goods or services, create a profit) while a parliament as a representative organ is one of the major arena for social conflicts. Of course power struggles are part of most, if not all, organisations, but observers of parliamentary business are well-advised to remember that behind most of the work done in any parliament there are more or less manifest conflicts of interests or values.

Second, this means that politicians in general and parliamentarians in particular face two tasks: Solve problems and mobilise voters and social interests. These tasks are not always easy to handle in isolation. Combine them and things get very complicated. We should also note, that if problem-solving gets the upper hand there is a risk that citizens will feel less engagement and perhaps even feel alienated from the policy elite. If mobilisation gets the upper hand, we end in pointless polemics – and voters may end being disgusted by destructive politics.

On the other hand, voters appreciate constructive politics and – as everyone who has checked the Facebook-pages of politicians and political commentators – polemical and condescending attacks on political opponents will invariably draw hordes of cheering supporters. If this sounds confusing, you are on the trail of something important: Voters’ preferences are contradictory.

If you – like me – have read a large number of political debates, you will be depressingly familiar with the polemical style. This is not limited to one particular wing of the political spectrum, but usually the opposition of the day is the most obnoxious part. To me, the problem is that polemics and “gotcha” questions and statements more often than not fail to bring something new to the process. Most Danish politicians are fascinatingly inept at this.

And personally, I tune out when the familiar type of polemics begin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some facts about the Danish Social Democrats

Jacob Christensen — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:32:24 +0000

I was looking for some data about the Danish Social Democrats for an article. Unfortunately, the internet (and in particular the material posted by the Danish Royal Library) can be a frustrating tool but here are some facts which interested me – not least because a comparison with Sweden could be worth an effort:

1. The Danish party has reformed its central organisation during the 00s: The old party board and executive committee were merged into a new board.

2. The statutes have rules for a direct election of the party chairman

3. Membership has continued its downward trend, despite an increase in 2005-06 following the leadership election. In 2003 the party had 54700 members, in 2010 it was down to 46050. The Social Democrats can take some solace in the fact that the party once again is the largest in terms of members after losing the position to the Liberals some time during the 1990s. In 2003 the Liberals had 69800 members, in 2010 they were down to 44400.

4. LO (the Danish TUC) no longer supports the Social Democrats but the party continues to receive some support from individual unions. Still, public subsidies are the largest sources of income by far.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Hoisted from the Comments: Aylott on Juholt, Löfvén, etc

Jacob Christensen — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:18:17 +0000

Just in case you didn’t read the comment, here is Nick’s post which focuses on the organisational level. Related posts: Exit Juholt, Enter (?) And what a ride that was: The Swedish Social Democrats... Aylott on Juholt It may be thought fairly remarkable, and perhaps sub-optimal, that... Suggested Readings “There’s an age when boys read [...] Related posts:

Exit Juholt, Enter (?) And what a ride that was: The Swedish Social Democrats...
Aylott on Juholt It may be thought fairly remarkable, and perhaps sub-optimal, that...
Suggested Readings “There’s an age when boys read one of two books....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Exit Juholt, Enter (?)

Jacob Christensen — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:05:12 +0000

And what a ride that was: The Swedish Social Democrats – a party which traditionally embodied the image of rational social engineering – spent the better part of 2011 on a veritable political roller-coaster under the luckless Håkan Juholt. Crises and internal conflicts are nothing new to the Nordic Social Democracies but a train-wreck of these dimensions is something unprecedented. One would probably have to look at the German Social Democrats where the position as party chairman turned into a veritable catapult sometime during the 1990s with the rapid succession of chairmen in 2005-2006 at the high (or low) point. Still, Germany with its federal structure is different and the party chairman is not necessarily the party’s candidate for the position as federal chancellor.

But at this point it is fair to ask what went wrong and how big the risks that the Social Democrats will repeat their mistakes. To do so, it will be an idea to look at the challenges, routines and solutions facing or available to the Social Democrats at four different levels and how the party responded and used the available alternatives.

The Social Level
There can be no doubt that the Social Democrats are structurally challenged. The party’s historical base was the numerous smaller and mid-sized communities which again formed the basis of industrial development during the 20th century but the Swedish society has changed as the major cities have become the main economic centres and the population is migrating to the Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö/Lund and Linköping/Norrköping regions. Crucially, the Social Democrats lost the fight against the Conservatives in Stockholm and Skåne in 2006 and again in 2010. Magnus Hagevi discussed this in a recent blog post but I would like to elaborate a bit on his argument by adding the shares of the vote won by the Left Party and the Green Party (I also begin my graph in 1970 rather than 1968)

It is obvious that the Social Democrats are facing a long-term decline in their share of the vote: While the party could operate with a target of 45 percent until the mid-1980s, its target share has been around 40 percent until 2006 and these days 35 percent looks like a more reasonable target. This means I am assuming that the party was performing below its potential in 2010 – and this assumption may not necessarily be correct. But another point is that “the left” is not necessarily weaker because of the Social Democratic crisis – the Left Party and the Green Party could attract voters, even if the Sweden Democrats continue to pull working-class voters to the right; a development Andreas Johansson Heinö has hightlighted (and which has parallels in Denmark)

The Institutional Level
Some years ago, the political scientist Ellen Immergut pointed to an overlooked factor which helped the Social Democrats to maintain their political hegemony from the 1930s until the 1970: The Swedish constitutions. Curiously, the democratisation of the constitution in the form of the abolition of the indirectly elected First Chamber and changes to the electoral system. Immergut’s conclusion is that – depending on your point of view – the Social Democrats punched above their weight until 1970 or that the party would have been stronger on the parliamentary arena, had the two-chamber system been retained.

We should note that the Danish Social Democracy faced similar challenges on the electoral and parliamentary level in the 1970s, so a different institutional development wouldn’t have stopped the Social Democrats from sliding into a crisis but we could have seen a different trajectory.

The Organisational Level
The Swedish Social Democrats have always taken pride in having a strong organisational culture. Outsiders might question the conflict between the image of a grass-roots movement on the one hand and the reality of a top-down controlled machine on the other but the party for a long time succeeded in creating the impression of an organisation without visible conflicts.

The problem is that a strong organisational culture which punish deviating opinions and open conflicts is bound to run into trouble when the environment changes or when conflicts emerge. In reality, there are only two ways to deal with this situation: Either let a dominant leadership decide the course and accept that dissidents are either excluded or leave or find some way of making conflict and conflict-resolution legitimate. The Social Democrats did neither following the Göran Persson’s resignation and this effectively meant that the party was drifting, despite the good intentions of Mona Sahlin. The closed nature of the process behind the selection of first Mona Sahlin and later Håkan Juholt only served to disguise the cracks in the walls of the building.

The Individual Level
At some point during the autumn of 2011 it was obvious that Håkan Juholt wasn’t the man to lead the Social Democrats out of their misery, but what was wrong? As the Swedish magazine Fokus has pointed out, Juholt’s first problem was that he represented the countryside and small towns, rather than the Stockholm centre. He was an outsider – not just because he hadn’t been a minister – and to succeed, he would need to create a stable power base in the party’s central organs. It was not necessarily wrong to pick an outsider, but the Social Democrats managed to pick a leader who looked more like a throwback to the Sweden of the 1970s than somebody who could finally bring the party into the 21st century.

Juholt’s second problem was that he lacked the basic skills needed in a party leader and especially one whose task would be to bring about major political and organisational change. Commentators have noted his carelessness with facts and controversial private life but to me, Juholt is fascinatingly like a Danish party leader who enjoyed great success in his first five years in office despite a certain erratic element. Yes, I am talking about Villy Søvndal – the traditionalist who transformed SF into a lean and mean electoral and parliamentary machine and who between 2005 and 2010 couldn’t make serious mistakes (What has happened from 2010 onward is a different story). Søvndal’s advantage was in seizing the moment when SF was ripe for organisational reform and creating a team (Ole Sohn in the Folketing and Thor Möger Petersen and – until his early death – Jakob Nørhøj in the party organisation) which could support him in a competent way. Juholt essentially was an agitator – and by all accounts a good one – but lacked the strategic and organisational skills. His team turned out to be just as erratic as the chairman, something which put the final nails in the coffin of Juholt’s leadership.

Postscript: For a number of bad reasons it has taken me ages to finish this post. in the meantime, the Social Democrats’ Executive Committee (which is no longer deferentially referred to as “the powerful Executive Committee”) has installed the leader of the Metal Workers’ Union Stefan Löfven as new/interim/whatever party leader. Lövfen is not an MP, something which highlights the party’s problems with attracting talent at the top levels.

The Chairman Speaks When did Håkan Juholt first appear in the gossip stream?...
Aylott on Juholt It may be thought fairly remarkable, and perhaps sub-optimal, that...
A Thought Experiment: Choosing a Challenger to Fredrik Reinfeldt As regular readers will know then I’m not a friend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Political Advertising, Finnish Style

Jacob Christensen — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:13:44 +0000

This, I am told, is not a parody but the real thing. Why on Earth support for Paavo Lipponen is languishing at below 10 percent in opinion polls beats me.

Well, not really.

Election Trends Just for the fun of it, I decided to try...
Academic(s) Blogging Please remind me that I should have an opinion about...
Opinion Polls As always, the first and best advice with regard to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dignified vs. Efficient: 2012 Edition

Jacob Christensen — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:00:03 +0000

Cudos to Ida Auken, MP for SF and Environment Minister in the three-party government, for drawing our attention to the State Council, one part of the Danish government which most people would be absolutely clueless about if you asked them in a vox-pop but still consider an essential part of the very special Danish form of democracy. Needless to say, the Danish People’s Party went ballistic and the Liberals and the Conservatives argued that any discussion of the Danish constitution amounted to sacrilege and an attack on everything the Sacred Danish Culture is built on.

If the three parties had their way, the minister would surely be banished to some remote island, just like others who dared to question the role of the monarch in the Danish political system.

Anyway, and on a serious note, we are dealing with the relationship between what Walter Bagehot called the dignified and the efficient components of the constitution with the State Council being one of the dignified components with no efficient political role: The Danish Monarch, unlike the German president, does not have an effective right or duty to perform a judicial review of new laws. Still, the Council and its duties are described in the Danish constitution and given that changing the constitution is almost impossible, we will all have to live with the illusion that the Monarch and the State Council have a political role. That Danish media do not report about the meetings and that the Monarch have more efficient, if technically informal, ways of being informed about current events in Danish politics is another matter.

These days, Danish political culture is mainly about creating and maintaining the illusion that we live in the 19th century – or rather: An imagined 19th century in which the sovereign powers of the Monarch were never challenged and Denmark never suffered military defeat.

Given the way the legislative machine works, there is very little which can be done to minimize the role of the State Council: Every ministry churns out new laws every month in numbers that are now too big to count which again means that ministers have to be present to do their presentations. Perhaps it would be possible to assign duties on a rotating basis and avoid meetings that are only designed to ramp up the numbers.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It Was Friday the 13th. Why Do You Ask?

Jacob Christensen — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:12 +0000

I managed to run my head against things (or have my head run against things) both literally and figuratively. At least the physical wounds were superficial (but unpleasant)

Random Border Control Observations Now that some of the smoke has cleared after the...
On the Ninth and Tenth Day of Campaigning 1. So, uhm, DR messed up the calendars? In a...
Opinion Polls As always, the first and best advice with regard to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A Thought Experiment: Choosing a Challenger to Fredrik Reinfeldt

Jacob Christensen — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:33:58 +0000

As regular readers will know then I’m not a friend of the argument that politics in European countries is about persons: In terms of polls and elections, party leader effects have more often that not proven to be elusive (Latest case in point: Villy Søvndal).

But here is a thought for the week-end: Let us imagine that the challenger to Fredrik Reinfeldt for the office of Prime Minister in Sweden had to be chosen though some kind of primary and we had Håkan Juholt and Jonas Sjöstedt as the contenders

A) Who would win?

and

B) Who would Reinfeldt’s team see as the more dangerous opponent?

The thing is: I can ask the question without being considered completely crazy and the answer – well, maybe the answer is obvious to most readers.

The Chairman Speaks When did Håkan Juholt first appear in the gossip stream?...
Exit Juholt, Enter (?) And what a ride that was: The Swedish Social Democrats...
bin Laden Sign o’ the times? I first learnt about the killing...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tempo de Amor

Jacob Christensen — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:56:09 +0000

We need something to distract us from the storm and the rain today. How about veteran jazz pianist Herbie Hancock accompanying Brazilian singer CéU?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt’s New Year’s Speech

Jacob Christensen — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:31:38 +0000

First, I don’t think it is relevant to see Thorning-Schmidt’s New Year’s speech as the last chance for the government. On the other hand, it wasn’t a speech like Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s 2002 or Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s 2011 speech which managed to define a political agenda.

Thorning-Schmidt’s main problem was to strike a balance between creating a traditonal crisis consciousness on the one hand (hardships are brought upon us from the outside) and the rights-and-duties discourse on the other. The “Søren”-story was a traditional appeal to solidarity but there was no comparable case about the rights-and-duties dimension.

Part of Thorning-Schmidt’s problem is that work on tax reform and benefits reform is still in the initial stages which limits her possibilites for being specific about policies. This is something which has also led the government into problems during the past months with accussations against Helle Thorning-Schmidt for lacking a political project.

All in all: A good but not brilliant speech. A 7 on the new Danish scale.

Update: Here is the Wordle

How to Compose a Government: The Helle Thorning-Schmidt Edition Obviously, Ugebrevet A4 has much better sources than I do,...
Making Sense of the Social Liberals You know, from a professional point of view I haven’t...
Two Years of Lars Løkke There you go: Today turns out to be Lars Løkke...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.